if costs a little to serve this area, the nearby comes on villages with a release, a could not reach. the hospital is fully equipped with doctors, medical crews and medical supplies. we have been catering to those children for 4 days now and we could filled a huge positive difference in them or how that was a pre historic science and the ok find westbank has been added to your nest goes list of weld heritage sites. tell also town which historians believe pre dates, the jeeps impairments as low case of near the policy in the city of jericho. evidence of ancient human supplement can be found at the altar on your close site. the . this is out of there are these, your top stories. it's now a week since devastating floods in libya. killed thousands of people as national 8 house big on arriving, but it's been slow to reach the west,

hit areas as calibrations on the way as dive as such. for bodies forced out and see how many thousands of people, including police officers, have been injured at the ever tree and cultural festival in the gym. and the city is got more than $200.00 people of interest to adopt a supporters of b. r a tree. and government for which opponents full members of a greek rescue team helping with recovery efforts in libya have died in a road accident. health minister for libby is east and government says 15 other members of the crew been injured on or receiving treatment. 7 of them in critical condition, the dominican republic has sent troops to reinforce, exploded with hasty. it's close to crossing off the objecting to hazy building, a canal, and a shed river. the dominican republic says hazy, is defying a long standing tree. see patients are able to return to the home country using the board a twice a day to our reg levels. and know the molly say they've seized control of 2

military bases on to attack in the town of larry and near the border with mauritania, as been an escalation involved. and since the un peacekeeping troops began withdrawing from the know the country, following a demand by molly's ministry genta, but you're into says it's cooled off next week's independence day celebrations. and is considering, mobilizing was office plummet activists are demonstrating in new york ahead of monday's un general assembly. the meeting will feature the 1st at the climate ambitions summit on the sidelines purchases. i agree that the u. s. u k. canada, in no way off or expanding, they use a fossil fuels. european commission present oldest of on the line has visited via town in ireland. as long producer, she paid tribute residents saying that doing all they can to support the unprecedented number of refugees and migrants arriving from parts of africa. as

your headlines fees continues it all up front. i have the right to boycott. anyone i want to and the state has no business getting involved in that. a new 3 part series explodes, the implications of us and people. the freedom of speech and 1st amendment got chosen to bless us because we protect israel. i'm going to continue. do you want to state level all that i can't support that whenever you see injustice regardless of what space storage and or what's going on. he says that he has to say something. artificial intelligence is the future of war. tech giants and governments are already partnering to produce lethal autonomous weapons, who the so called killer robots, unleashed a new kinds of danger. ok, they make war safer. as supporters claim that conversation is coming up with 1st with recent world events, the danger of nuclear war has spite nuclear weapons are the most dangerous

munitions on earth, the potential to kill millions, to level cities and destroy the natural environment for generations to come. yet even with this knowledge, we are no closer to achieving total nuclear nonproliferation. in fact, the topic continues to be debated. why is that? we'll ask this was headliner, beatrice bit executive director of the 2017 nobel peace prize recipients, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. the beatrice spin executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. i can thank you so much for joining us on upfront. our 10 was a driving force behind the 2017 treaty and the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which the organization was awarded the nobel peace prize. $122.00 countryside onto the treaty. but none of the nuclear powers did, nor did any of the nato countries. and since then,

we've seen russian nuclear forces on a high alert level in the us to withdraw from the ran due increases in india in pakistan's nuclear warhead stockpiles. and a bunch of other recent developments which are the main countries in the world right now preventing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as well. thank you very much for having me and mark. um, yeah, i mean the tv was a great accomplishment, but of course the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 neutrons dates and the other countries that are participating in exercising and practicing and hosting new to us will the territory have not get during the treaty, and this was one of the reasons why we pushed this tv to happen because we saw that things were getting worse with huge quantization programs from the new chrome states. all of them are upgrading and increasing the new arsenals. a much more nationalistic tendency, they all trust me each other much more of this kind of arms for a start is happening right now. and of course,

now we see how russia is basically threatening the world to using throughout them. if anyone interferes with its invasion of ukraine. so this is really a very serious moment, but it's, it's almost exactly why we pushed for this treaty, having these weapons wherever we will see them being used. eventually we see a very dangerous situation right now. the risk of nuclear use has increased. i'm not saying that it's likely to be used, but i think we have to be aware that we are pushing closer and closer to the point where we essentially going to be used and we have to drastically change. and it is the nuclear on states, and it's the nuclear allied states in nato, for example, they really have to be discharged because we cannot be as vulnerable for one person in the world anymore. well, let's talk about one of those nuclear arms states. russian president vladimir putin actually order nuclear forces to be put on a high alert level. what in your estimation is the likelihood of nuclear war? i wouldn't say that it's likely. i still hope that the threshold for using nuclear

weapons remains very, very high for oil countries. but the more i see, of course, the war developing in ukraine and seeing the threats doesn't paint the great picture for it for what we could imagine happening in ukraine as well. and also sort of like a, a very irrational leader under a lot of pressure feeling like there's no way out for him. i'm very worried about this. i'm also very worried about accidents. mistakes, things that we didn't expect could happen. we just saw a few weeks ago in the i mistaken me launch a miss on, on, on practice, done by accident and having these situations happening right now on the beast engine. if that would have happened between say, a us a base and rush. of course, i mean because because it could be opposite that this will be we could stumble into nuclear war. and of course we see the situations like north korea testing miss. also i to be honest, again south korea saying that he wants nuclear weapons. we've seen bela roo,

say that they could station russian new to us on the territory. we've seen poland say a week. it's best asian american to come up with an us. there's so many variables here and so many on certain situations and we have are just being sold, vulnerable for just relying on these people, mainly men, to always get it back to never make a mistake to always behave rationally and basically putting the feet of our entire humanity in the hands of someone like put in and just hope for the best. it's absolutely unsustainable. escalation has been happening for a while now. in 2019 president, trump also withdrew the us from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or the i n f, which mark the 1st time that both the us and russia had agreed to actually reduce their nuclear arsenals. in fact, when this happened, you've stated a quote, trump has fired the starting pistol on cold war 2. so to what extent does move by the us undermine nuclear disarmament?

and perhaps even compromise global nuclear security. i mean, we've seen this has been a trend over the last 10 years. we've seen a dismounting of international legal instruments we've seen by a nation and specialty in smith, both on one side, but for many different sides. we saw trump withdrawal from the i n s. t b a from the van deal, which the investor violates a lot of these kind of instruments. and we've seen them a barn at the chemical weapons convention as well. we've seen a really negative turn and then you add this very kind of trend of national mistake sort of match. so leaders a threatening sort of rest of a get an arms race must sit investments in, in, in nuclear weapons. and you get that kind of tension and i think that this is exactly what we want about like if we continue down this path, we are on very dangerous territory. and i think that it's not just one decision here and there that you know, makes it so dangerous many different overtime. a complete the prior to some of the

pre authorization of the salma diplomacy of multilateralism, working together and seeing actually reduction of nuclear arsenals as increasing global security. and in the meantime, you have the rest of the world without nuclear weapons feeling at hostages. and this kind of situation, i think that there's a lot of countries around the world now looking at the situations like today, just decide over the fate of my country to do. we have a sam this and that's exactly what the treated, the prohibition on the floor plan. so it's about taking control for other countries to say actually we have to get to disarmament. we have the bond and eliminate these weapons. let's talk a little bit about the iran deal because talks have resumed to implement the around the also known as the jcp away. when trump withdrew from the deal in 2628 and excuse me, you called it disastrous. and you said it was essentially a pretext for the us to wage war on iran. do you anticipate a return to the iran deal and from a global security standpoint?

uh, what's at stake if the deal fails as well when the trump administration withdrew from the treaty it had a very sort of i think so this just intent with that it was a functioning deal. it really had strict verification ensure the yvonne was not developing their weapons and the us just intentionally sabotage that. but the standard that was in the run there was the highest that we've ever seen that international. we met with education on nuclear energy facilities. and i a, a verified that they run with implementing it. they are not develop new prep as we know what they're doing. so i, i think that was just intentionally trying to portray the treaty as by when it was actually a very high standard treaty. i was really a he a huge diplomatic achievement to get it. so when it was broken, of course it's really hard to put these things back together. and you have undermined trust from iran, from all the, all the countries that were part of this treaty. so i think it's a, it's a view,

it's a really good sign that these countries are still trying very hard to get it back together to get a treaty back together. i think that it shows a commitment from all sides. and i really hope that they will but will succeed. now proponents of the terrance they are getting the best way to prevent nuclear war is to build a nuclear arsenal on both sides of a conflict. so that they are useful. lead to the mutually assured destruction of everyone. that's the language it's always being used. you, on the other hand, argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to make sure that there are no such weapons to begin with. how is nuclear deterrence theory lot, and how can we approach this argument in a way that makes the world safer? i mean, new to the terrace theory is it is so strange try because it's like if it's because all these bizarre assumptions that we do 1st, it requires that everyone with nuclear weapons forever is always passionate and

always takes to my position. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, were when would it be rational to start nuclear war, a nuclear war full scale if the war could end commodity as we know, i mean that will be survive us. but like the world that we know it, but that would be gone. would it ever be rational to do that? i mean that's collective suicide. would a person like bite and ever feel like that's the right decision to make? probably not, so you would have in order to test or even work, you have to be rational. and then you have this idea that the opponent would also make divide assumption about 2 measures. would it be irrational to obviously defending if there were here, but wouldn't be a rational to, to launch the nuclear weapon if the other side didn't have one as well that, i mean, if you want to mass motor low civilians like sure. and i think that that's also where this, the, this theory kind of fails. and we see it now is happening in ukraine food and isn't

using his nuclear arsenal to protect russia. he's using it to be able to invade a country without no to offense and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invitation, i will use nuclear weapons. so basically, countryside united states are limited and is option where they can do to, to help your premiums because it has to go up. so here is actually a disadvantage. and when you're having this kind of stand up between 22 nuclear arms states, for example, like put in and by then who would be the most reckless like would, would by then ever convincing me threatened to murder more. so i billy and then to do would, would we believe that we put them to be better? and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone like putting okey men or she or whoever, to always get a bike to medical stuff 9. but still, in order for the types of work you have to be prepared across the line. so it's a complete contradiction. no to determines, and they can never guarantee,

but they won't. it won't happen. so it does all these kind of weird assumptions that we're making and at the end of the day, mistakes happen, people are irrational, me, people act unpredictably and we can't guarantee that it won't happen. and i think that the consequences are so massive that we just have to eliminate them. is that before you go there, many of us who are persuaded by your argument for a nuclear disarmament. but some people would say that, given the history of settler colonialism, imperialism mass, genocide, et cetera, that we have no reason to believe the powerful people, powerful nations, whatever, concede their weaponry, their nuclear arsenals in particular. and that while the idea is good, will never get there what gives you a hope that we can actually have a world without nuclear weapons. a well guess me hope is really though we have made a lot of progress internationally in the world when it comes to international law

when it comes to human bards. when it comes to rules and how we supposed to be having, it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you open your twitter account and you get overwhelmed with all the awful things that are happening right now. but, you know, things like the un charter of things like that, you know, the geneva conventions be so you know, not just because flawless, assume preventing pressure from doing all these things right out. but we are posting being patient because they're both saying that you can read another country . and without those rules, if we never developed those tools, it will just fair game for everyone to just do whatever. and the biggest countries would, would, would been all those things. and they would do whatever they want, but they can't really always do whatever they want. and i think the things like the color station, for example, seeing how all these countries who were colonized by the, by the sort of major powerful countries have become free today. and all their own countries, and that's, you know, they did that despite these countries having breakfast, i think that is

a way and the powerful have always lost their power with the majority has risen up and stood against that. and that's when you can really make change happen. so the, treating, the prohibition on the go up as is really a way of creating a hard pollution on this nuclear structure that we create as i no longer can these 5 countries and the other 4 that has them as well, like just dictate the terms and say this is fine because we have them and you can have them now where we're changing the game. we create a new loss, a new rules, and we're going to demand a different system. but i've just been thinking so much for joining me on the killer robots, the future of war, more technically known as leaf autonomous weapon systems or laws. these robots can operate independently and attack targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons of already been deployed in military conflict, but some warrant to warn you crane could see both sides using autonomous weapons in

an unprecedented way. despite you wouldn't let attempt to curb development and establish international regulation of loss. countries including the us and russia, are continuing their unchecked development of the technology. human rights organizations are campaigning against killer robots. while some military experts argue that they'll make more safer and more efficient. are they right? and are we witnessing the dawn of a new arms race? joining me to discuss this, our lar nolan, a former google employee and software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control. and matt and moody and artificial intelligence research or with amnesty international bid to see both of you. thank you for joining me. laura. i'm gonna start with you. uh, the evolution of killer robots has been described as a quote, potentially seismic event in warfare akin to the invention of gun powder and nuclear bombs. that's a rather, a staggering characterization is the one you'd agree with it absolutely is not. i mean, the essential competitor is alta, but it's actually pretty much for the,

the whole, the whole nature of the nation states and the whole way that we live. i don't think the weapons are likely to be about that size make. i mean, i think looking at the current context, we live in it. we're living in a world where people are building is complex and weapons which are on proven and their, their utility on their advocacy is completely on proven. i do think that on those weapons are likely to post danger both to both the soldiers themselves. i think there's a very high risk of, frankly, far as like incidence. i think there's a high risk of civility and harm. i think there's a very high risk of potentially sparking off the conflict and, and i'm an intentional kind of way, man, i want to have it to you for a 2nd big in terms of the technology of war. are we now want to see a racist who can to see who can build the, the biggest and most efficient and what is the most destructive killer robot? i just think it's important to note that states are course in competition with each other around upon us weapons systems. i mean,

in january 2021 alone we've seen and it was in rafael bassett, the past systems building and showcasing commercial drones and robot dock capable of vision recognition. we've seen in libya and march 2020 the use of various cargo drones, which has been developed by true use the number of cases in which technologies that are upon what's happening systems by definition are being used. however, we set the form of the art armstrong is, might look quite different to what we're expecting. a lot of the technologies that upon, on the side, the systems are built on our technologies that are being used in everyday concerts in the policing complex. for example, based on one condition for mass surveillance, emotional recognition, gate recognition, pretty nevada linux. these are all tools that we know are being used against. for example, life's not are for testers and have been known to time and time again. fail into arguments, racially discriminatory policing, and r b facto against international rascal. so we're looking for one terminator to

show up at our door. we're maybe looking in the wrong place and then argue that what we're actually needing to, to, to keep an eye out for, or these more on sort of one of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives and, and daughter, how we live. and it seems to me that a big part of that is the growing of partnerships between these tech companies and governments. laura, you worked as an engineer for google before residing in 2018 out of protest after you were assigned to work on project maven, which seeks to advanced drone technology for the u. s. military. in recent years, amazon, microsoft and google have all signed contracts with the pentagon, while others, including elan, must have pledge not to develop lethal autonomous weapons. how dangerous are these partnerships? particularly in light of the fact that these companies have the personal information of more than

a 1000000000 people around the world. or i think i would have like, like to underline what might just said, which is that these are not only mostly technologies i'm, there are huge implications here for civil liberties for courtesy and for you know, how, how we live our lives. i've cyber warfare context as well. so fundamentally, when you're talking about, or talking about the weapons, if you want to build a bridge, you don't really need more problems. weapon out on those weapons are fundamentally but targets that are mobile. they're not, not protecting belcher bases. and offer jackie and columns that are by people there, but people on vehicles that have people in them. and therefore these kinds of weapons temporary intimately by don't in surveillance. technology is because you need to have a homeless weapon. you needs to have technology to know where people are, where people are moving around and just on just on their behavior. so we're big tech comes into this is if you think about cloud computing technology, you have big companies like amazon, microsoft, google, they're making

a lot of money out of selling and wants to cloud computing technology. now surveillance technology is a huge the compute intensive. so quite simply, it takes a lot of see if you cycles a lot of memory, a lot of extensive confusing infrastructure to run this kind of technology. so there's a huge business opportunity here to build surveillance systems. and i think we can see that for a night in the fact that all of the major class companies have built in a price for recognizing objects for recognizing people. and this is, as i said, this is very much drawing use technology between military and civilian applications . man, let me ask you a question about precision here. us air strikes are notoriously emphasized. they've killed thousands of civilians. for example, there was a jo striking bureau, a young man in 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 us air striking northern syria killed at least 120 civilians. could

a technology at least reduce deadly incidents like this. absolutely not. humans are not just numbers and i think to be systems do process human beings as if they were, you know, from research that joingotomeeting intended to get through to a while ago. that in many cases, facial recognition systems are incapable of identifying especially black women with a rate of anywhere between $60.00 to $70.00 to sometimes 90 percent, depending on this study that you're looking at. now even if you were to make those systems 99 percent accurate, let's say that you could, you're still dealing with systems that are inherently existing in the context of discrimination, institutional racism, massage any etc. and so i think it's important that we looked at how would that be different than the current systems of policing or surveillance, or education or anything else we have. and so it would double down enough to match those existing crisis, even though success,

existing forms of discrimination. so we don't want to have a system in which say you have to discriminatory practices and put them on steroids . that's exactly the opposite of what we want to do. and so what we need is, in fact, a legally binding instrument, which is what the stock killer robots campaign has been calling for. and what we need is also a global ban on remote biometric surveillance technologies, which you're new to these assignments, weapon systems. i did want to make a quick points regarding what might said before about about the dangers of comfortability or regulation and why it makes different stop what you might take unimed, perfect in process that is executed by human beings on automated. so one of the great problems that we have, i guess we both preserving our civil rights and our free society and also with overseeing international humanitarian law. i'm showing that the, the, the international votes of warfare are respected. it is, but we have

a lack of transparency. one of the things that we see is when we automate the process, we as much as we make it less flexible. and we also tend to make it much less transparent. if we start taking the logic of what we're doing warfare or you know, society and start encouraging it in and processing algorithms on prophecies that are free and switchable that's can be inspected by few people that are controlled by a few people that we, we do, we do risk things spinning out of control away so we don't want. laura is also an argument to be made that it's too late, right? the most powerful nations are supporting this stuff. the technology is already in use. us national security commission, co chair. uh robert work said uh, a guy in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and to begin the most part so people are behind it. what do we do? is it too late?

i think that that is a very, very yeah, net listed kind of approach to, to take to us and people can do for weapons. they were used in 1945 and they haven't been use since. so it's possible to refrain from the use all sorts of weapons as across development. and there's also been very, very strong norm has emerged against chemical weapons and also biological weapons. and of course, there's a very, very strong emerging norm against the use of landmines because of the, the harm to the duties of aliens. so i think it's, i don't, i don't think it's correct to say that there's no hope that the weapons therapy thought weapons are never bound or those states that are refrain from using particular types of buttons. man, it's never to like me to put human beings and not data points to head up the agenda . and as we seem to find time again with even issues of check as soon as enough people are aware of the kinds of harms the systems are causing, the will inevitably move the needle on what is seen as permissible. and what we need to do in this particular moment is move the needle on how 1st of all we're

finding thomas weapon system. and as you know from where we're standing, absolutely acceptable. laura mac, thank you so much for joining me on upfront. all right, that is our show upfront. we'll be back next week the, the the to the

stories of hope and inspiration show a document to ease from around the world that celebrates colleen and resilience in the times of time on the phone. and it's time for the west to we think the best option for the ukraine. watch a war and what, what those options look like. what is us strategy when it comes to iran for almost 200 years, americans have generally been stuck with 2 political choices. but cannot ever change the quizzical look at us politics. the bottom line, asking questions. how is the community off to the side by hearing the facts?

this is the legacy of colonialism. understanding the reality. we're closing from the connection. it's a race against 5 to flying people to a level with seeing this gen and as in an in depth coverage to 0 is teens on the ground. bring you closer to the cost of the story. the, the, the, any 50000 people reportedly displaced the 900 buildings destroyed across the libyan city of done on to last week's devastating sense. the money inside this now is there a life and death was so coming out,

head of your opinion, lays out a 10 point plan to help. it's a deal with it's migrant crisis. thousands of ations returning home from the dominican republic home to dispute between the neighbors on climate activists months in new york ahead of the un general assembly.